1. Demands of integrative science Is NACP reducing uncertainty in the N.A. carbon budget? –Tendency toward spatial reductionism: regional intensives, subregional intensives, “granularity,” etc. –MCI “test bed” (incomplete!) vs. stated purpose of NACP –Global C budget imbalance (“missing carbon sink”) is inherently multi-year; MCI budget will be one year, one region Need integrated science planning as well as synthesis –Ongoing integration and synthesis –Long-term continuity –Integration of research and “operations” –Prediction?? Overhead –Data management –Communication: workshops, working groups, cross-disciplinary learning –Examples: IPCC, SOCCR –Volunteers are over-stressed, under-appreciated

2. Demands of decision support Carbon management is much more than biological sequestration –Emissions reduction –Geologic and oceanic sequestration Decision support is much more than carbon management –Broad public policy questions –Science and technology planning –Very diverse stakeholders –Public outreach –Rapid and chaotic needs as well as deliberative processes Need for decision-relevant information is immediate! Overhead –Communication: new language, new venues, new requests –Innovative structures and mechanisms –Direct participation by active research scientists

3. New leadership structures and mechanisms Larger science support staff for program managers? SSG with more integrative authority and responsibility? –Perhaps combine with authorship of periodic assessments (SOCCR?) –Should not rely entirely on volunteers Crash program to scope immediate decision support needs? Cultural change –Program management requires more involvement by active research scientists –Scientists contributing to integration and decision-support need incentives and satisfaction rather than disincentives and frustration Human dimensions: look in the mirror –The societal role of scientists and science managers is under intense scrutiny.